New Mailings from EEF Number in the Hundreds; Foundation Repeats Misinformation EPA Wants Stopped

Voices/Word on the Street

Effect of Appeals to S520 Felt Minimally at IICRC

Maine Leads States in Lung Association's Report

Legal: Air Cleaner Cases Speak to Truth in Advertising

Ask Dr. Burge: Encapsulating Fungal Growth, Leaving It in Place

Radon Corner: Guam Opens Pacific-based Radon Training Center 

Cleaning and Restoration: Quantifying Bacteria Levels in Water Categories 1-3
 

Canada Urges Removal of Mold Hazard from Homes
By Steve Sauer

A simplistic residential guideline proposed by the Canadian government in December situates household mold as a potential health hazard. In a plainly worded draft guideline, the country’s health agency recommends that citizens “clean thoroughly any mould growing in residential buildings ... regardless of the mould species found to be growing in the building.”

Health Canada also stresses in the residential guideline that citizens can prevent mold growth when they “control humidity and diligently repair any water damage in residences.”

The proposed Health Canada guideline cites scientific animal studies and literature reviews over the past five years that associate indoor dampness with asthma and lung inflammation. The guideline also holds that cell walls of molds contain a certain compound with inflammatory properties, and that mold spores and mycelial fragments contain allergens.

Dr. J. David Miller, a scientific consultant to Health Canada’s Air Health Effects Division, contributed to the drafting of a larger and more detailed document that has been used in Canadian courts. Health Canada’s new guideline is a summary of this document, said Miller, who is a biochemistry professor at Carleton University in Ottawa and also a member of the Biosafety and Environmental Microbiology Committee of the American Industrial Hygiene Association.

With Thomas G. Rand and two researcher from St. Mary’s University in Halifax, Miller and a fellow researcher at Carleton University coauthored one of two papers published in 2005, cited by the Health Canada Guideline, that observed lung inflammation and asthma-like responses in rodents exposed to a common indoor mold or its toxins. Their study, which deals with Penicillium chrysogenum, was published in the journal Toxicological Sciences.

The other referenced study took place not in Canada but in the United States. In that study, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill environmental scientist Yong-joo Chung and others found “dose-dependent allergic asthma-like responses in mice” from exposure to the same species of mold.

One of that study’s coauthors, Dr. Stephen Vesper, works with the National Exposure Research Laboratory in Cincinnati, under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “The fact is that every indoor environment contains mold,” Vesper told IE Connections. “However, not every mold is found in indoor environments and certainly not at the same concentration in each home. Therefore, it has been our goal to try to understand the difference between a water-damaged home and non-water-damaged home. To this end, we have published many studies describing the development of the Relative Moldiness Index.”

Three such papers containing Vesper’s contributions appear in 2004 editions of Systematic and Applied Microbiology, Journal of Environmental Monitoring, and Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Vesper’s presentations on this topic also included the Indoor Air Quality Association’s annual meetings in 2005 and 2006, as well as the April 2006 open house sponsored by the Florida Inter-County IAQ Council.
Vesper also detailed how the Relative Moldiness Index has taken on a more practical application since EPA’s collaboration with another arm of the federal government, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

“We have now extended this work to the national scale, with the recent completion, in conjunction with HUD, of the American Healthy Home Survey,” he said. “The result has been the development of the Environmental Relative Moldiness Index ... based on the analysis of 36 species in a representative set of nearly 1,100 U.S. homes using a highly standardized dust sample.”

Vesper has used the Environmental Relative Moldiness Index, or ERMI, in epidemiological studies appearing in the August 2006 editions of Environmental Health Perspectives and the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

The Health Canada guideline was issued Dec. 23, and a public comment period was announced that would last through at least Feb. 20.
 

New Mailings from EEF Number in the Hundreds
Foundation Repeats Misinformation EPA Wants Stopped
By Steve Sauer

The Environmental Education Foundation issued promotional materials in about 300 separate mailing lists in one week last month, not only dodging federal government demands that EEF stop spreading information deemed to be misleading, but also assuming the names of an array of groups with which EEF is not affiliated.

E-mails EEF sent during the third week of January distributed messages that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has upon previous occasions called intentionally misleading. An IE Connections investigation has identified 302 separate mailing lists that are maintained on EEF’s Web site, nearly all of which were used between Jan. 16 and 19 to promote an upcoming training session EEF claimed was the result of a contract with the EPA.

The overwhelming majority of these mailing lists assume the identities of a broad base of organizations, companies and publications. These e-mails were sent with the name of each mailing list appearing in the “from” field, along with the common e-mail address sending them all – info@enviro-ed.org, which is the main contact e-mail address EEF lists on its Web site.

For instance, any people who found themselves subscribed to the mailing list “kreia,” or “Kentucky Real Estate Inspection Assoc.,” saw that name used as the sender of the e-mail that was really from EEF. It was also true of those who had been subscribed to regional mailing lists like “International Facilities Management Assoc. San Fernando Valley” and international mailing lists like “International Code Council.”

Each e-mail apologized for “the short notice” and said EEF had “just received the approval for” a $200 subsidized registration to attend EEF’s online two-day mold training to be held Feb. 15–16 for a total payment reduced from $495 to $295. EEF’s mailing does not identify the source of any subsidy authorization.

In a strikingly similar message sent in February 2006, EEF used a $200 subsidy to promote another training session that was to be held Feb. 15–16 of that year.

In lists for contractors and property managers, EEF publicized another $200 subsidy – this for online training to take place Dec. 13–14 – announced between Nov. 30 and Dec. 6 with differing registration deadlines but with a recurring message: “sorry for the short notice, but we just received the approval for the $200.00 subsidy.”

Making last month’s series of EEF announcements unique over past e-mail solicitations was the employment of hundreds of mailing lists to deliver the foundation’s message online to mass audiences, deceptively: Of the 302 mailing lists discovered are several named for various entities in the IAQ industry, including IE Connections. E-mails sent between Jan. 16 and 19 appearing to be from the American Industrial Hygiene Association, National Air Filtration Association, Indoor Air Quality Association and American Indoor Air Quality Council prompted the organizations to distribute their own mailings to affected constituents between Jan. 19 and 23.

Less than 12 hours after IAQA members reported receiving an e-mail promoting EEF training from a mailing list called “iaqa” on Jan. 19, the association sent an official e-mail to its entire membership explaining that the earlier e-mail was not authorized by IAQA. In its alert to members, IAQA spoke for itself and a handful of other affected entities in the IAQ industry, saying that they “are not affiliated with EEF, nor do they endorse or approve the EEF training programs described in the recent EEF emails.”

The IAQ Council, NAFA and AIHA delivered similar messages over the next four days.
AIHA responded first by contacting EEF directly, said AIHA’s executive director, Steven Davis. “We went to EEF and politely demanded that they cease and desist from using our name or acronym in any way shape or form,” Davis told IE Connections on Jan. 22. He said his assistant at AIHA, Peter O’Neil, left a phone message asking EEF “to inform anyone registering for their course that AIHA was not and never has been an endorser of their program.”

Davis said he believed EEF would comply with AIHA’s warning. “Hopefully, this will be the end of their transgressions,” he said.

In an e-mail on Jan. 23, AIHA informed its members of the association’s non-endorsement of the EEF training. “We felt it was important for our members to know that AIHA does not officially support this organization or this program, regardless of the impression with which their marketing may leave you,” AIHA told its members.

“It is unfortunate that emails using deceptive tactics have been used to potentially mislead those in the IAQ industry,” IAQA informed its members, urging them “to exercise extreme caution and to perform careful research prior to contracting for training and/or certification services with organizations and individuals who employ such tactics.”

“Energy Star,” the name of one particular mailing list info@enviro-ed.org utilized in promoting the EEF training, is a trademark registered to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dating back to September 1996. A Jan. 19 e-mail sent to recipients on the Energy Star list contained the same information as all the others that week, opening with the line, “New Training As A Result Of EPA Contract.”

The same language has appeared on the front page of EEF’s Web site since November 2005, despite the agency’s protests in 2006 that it does not endorse or approve of the training. Elsewhere on the Web site and in separate marketing efforts, EEF has used the EPA’s distinctive seal in ways suggestive of a connection.

Reacting to such marketing, legal counsel for the EPA in October demanded EEF cease and desist in using the agency’s logo and seal in such marketing and outreach materials. EEF reportedly ignored a 30-day deadline to respond to the EPA demand, and references to the EPA as a partner with EEF continued to appear on the organization’s Web site as this issue went to press in January.

Dr. David Mudarri, who retired last month and is credited with founding the EPA’s Indoor Environments Division, had disclosed to IE Connections in December 2005 that “EEF received an unsatisfactory rating” on an EPA contract effective between March 29, 2004, and Aug. 31, 2005, “because they failed to satisfactorily meet the performance requirements of the contract.” The sum of EPA payments to EEF on the contract was $43,678, and the EPA withheld more than 12 percent of the payment for the foundation’s poorly rated performance under the contract.

Many EEF marketing materials, including the most recent e-mails, share a declaration attributed to Mudarri in which he announces that the contract has been awarded. It is from the statement of work Mudarri issued to EEF at the onset of the contract in 2004, and it does not reflect the strained relationship between the foundation and the EPA that emerged over time.
 

WORD ON THE STREET

VOICES

“I would be very suspicious of that organization if it’s one that Al Gore supported. If it’s one that he supported, then I probably wouldn’t support it.”

— Edward J. Cirillo, who was a Republican state senator in Arizona between 1996 and 2003, speaking about the Environmental Education Foundation in a telephone interview on Jan. 19, in response to a question of whether or not he is correctly listed, alongside Gore, on the EEF Web site as having once sent a letter of support to EEF; while Cirillo said he could not recall such a letter, his support of the organization was verified when EEF provided IE Connections an undated letter printed on state letterhead and signed by Cirillo; Gore’s office confirmed that a quotation on EEF’s Web site that is attributed to the former vice president is “old but accurate”

MOST OZONE GENERATORS ALWAYS ON
Most Calif. residents owning ozone-emitting air cleaners run them every day and continuously, a survey in the state has determined. A study released last month, believed to be the first in California to analyze trends in the purchase and use of air cleaners, estimates that 10 percent of the state’s households are exposed to ozone emitted either intentionally or as a byproduct and that most of these machines are never turned off. Of California households in which the primary air cleaner emits ozone, 65.5 do not turn off the devices off at any time in a given week. The number for air cleaners designated as purposeful ozone generators, rather than those for which ozone is a byproduct, is slightly higher: 72 percent. The statewide survey of 2,019 adults was conducted last year by the University of California Survey Research Center in Berkeley, under contract with the California Air Resources Board.

Proceeding to draft regulations on ozone emissions from indoor air cleaners, the Board has scheduled a public workshop to be held March 29 in Sacramento. Anyone unable to attend the workshop in person may participate by telephone and Web; for more information, visit www.arbc.ca.gov.

STL COMPLETES TESTAMERICA MERGER
The combination of Severn Trent Laboratories with TestAmerica is now complete, STL announced Jan. 9 in a statement crediting the move with the creation of a “new environmental testing market leader.” Severn Trent Laboratories sold last year to TestAmerica Holdings for a reported figure of nearly $162 million. Also according to the release, “The combined company will have 54 analytical laboratories and dozens of service centers and microlabs strategically located across the United States.” The move aligns Aerotech P&K, an affiliate of STL, with EMLab, the analytical mold testing division of TestAmerica. EMLab specializes in the analysis of molds, yeasts, bacteria and allergens. The Aerotech P&K team, formed by a 2004 merger, combines the capabilities of Aerotech Laboratories Inc. with P&K Microbiology Services Inc. STL operations in the United States included 32 laboratories, 16 service centers, and QED Environmental Systems. “This combination is a defining moment for TestAmerica and STL,” said TestAmerica CEO Tom Barr. “We look forward to building on our combined strengths to provide the best possible service to our clients, create a positive and rewarding working environment for our employees, and realize the potential of the new company.” TestAmerica is an affiliate of H.I.G. Capital, a private investment firm. STL was previously operated by Severn Trent PLC, whose chief officer said last year that it the U.S. Laboratories division was “no longer regarded as being a core business for the future.”

MORE NEWS FROM LIBBY
While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defended its work in decreasing asbestos exposure to residents of Libby, Mont., January was also marked by a disturbing new study revealing that respiratory disease-related deaths for most of last century were higher among those working in mines near Libby than for the average U.S. citizen.

The more prolonged the exposure to vermiculite was for miners translated to better chances they would contract one of several fatal diseases, writes author Patricia A. Sullivan of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, in an article published in Environmental Health Perspectives. In the article, Sullivan calls for more research in the health effects experienced by various kinds of workers when they are exposed to vermiculite insulation inside home attics in that town. “Vermiculite from the mine near Libby, Montana, is contaminated with tremolite asbestos and other amphibole fibers,” she explains in the report. This could affect electricians, plumbers, and people installing cable or repairing phone lines in homes, increasing their risk of dying from asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma and cancer of the pleura, reports Sullivan.

EPA’s Region 8, which covers Montana and other states, said that a December report by the agency’s acting inspector general was misinformed and off base. The inspector general’s report said that because the agency has not conducted a comprehensive amphibole asbestos toxicity assessment in Libby, it was failing to follow internal guidance. In the response, obtained by IE Connections on Jan. 29, the EPA rebutted that a toxicity assessment was skipped because it would have delayed cleanup, which was determined to be the more urgent need. The EPA said that it has spent $154 million in Libby and completed 794 residential and commercial property cleanups, and that toxicity studies would be part of the next phase of risk assessment.

Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, who in December said he was “outraged” by revelations in the inspector general’s report, could not be reached for comment on his reaction to the Region 8 response. A senior member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee overseeing the EPA, Baucus had previously called for a congressional hearing into the asbestos cleanup.

TORONTO PLANS FOR COOLING SEASON
Over 30 buildings in Toronto’s financial district are being cooled by an alternative to conventional air-conditioning. Cold water from 272 feet below the surface of Lake Ontario is moved via pipes to a city pumping station, kicking off a process a press release says is capable of cooling 34.5 million square feet of office space and saving customers millions of dollars in electric power usage, all while eliminating ozone-depleting refrigerants and removing 79,000 tons of carbon dioxide from the air. Steve Martile, project manager at Toronto-based Enwave Energy Corp., said the system’s long-term success depends on disinfecting and filtering the water so that impurities do not coat the heat exchanger plates and so that suspended matter does not provide nutrients for biological growth. Either problem, said Martile, would lower the system’s efficiency, require higher disinfection treatment costs, and possibly damage system components. A centrifugal sand filtration system manufactured by Sonitec Inc. is designed to remove solids that are under half a micron in size, thereby protecting the Enwave cooling system against impurity buildup and biological growth. In 12-week tests conducted after Sonitec’s Vortisand filtration system was installed in September 2005, total particle count in the chilled water was reduced by 89.6 percent and total suspended solids were reduced by 96.5 percent.
       

Two challenges to the process of revising the mold remediation standard filed by ex-members of the consensus body would result in few actions to be taken by the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification, according to responses IICRC distributed in late December and early January.

As reflected in IICRC’s responses to appeals alleging numerous policy violations in the standard’s revision process over the past year, only minor actions would be taken to correct some past wrongs. IICRC denied all of the major allegations illuminated by former S520 drafters Elisa Larkin and Carl Grimes.

In nearly all cases, IICRC said the incidents alleged were too old to be reviewable, citing a 15-day moratorium on reporting offenses taking place in the process. Even in those cases, IICRC provided sometimes lengthy responses analyzing the allegation and, in a few cases, said corrective actions would be taken.

Responding to separate suggestions by Larkin and Grimes that the IICRC ought to revert to older versions of the document, IICRC refused to do so. Reverting to a previous version would be “ineffective, detrimental or unnecessary,” the organization said in its responses to both appellants.

Also indicated in IICRC’s responses was that since both appeals were filed, a subsequent meeting of the S520 consensus body in Tampa performed further work on revising the standard. In some cases, the consensus body was able to resolve issues brought forth in both appeals, said IICRC.

Larkin, who had co-chaired the document’s Inspection and Preliminary Determination section, cut her ties with the S520 body on Oct. 28 and filed an appeal Nov. 29 highlighting 14 possible violations of IICRC policies.

IICRC deflected an assertion in Larkin’s appeal that, in at least one instance, “changes were left up to those who could remember what work had been done” at a meeting for which minutes were “lost.” In its response, IICRC called the allegation disingenuous and said that, in one or two instances in which a day’s worth of work was lost due to a hardware failure, “work was simply redone” by “the entire Editing Committee.”

According to IICRC, if any errors were made in the process, there would still be ample time for members of the consensus body to correct them before the S520 revision is finalized.

Whenever participants at the Dec. 7–9 meeting in Tampa brought up incidents related to recordkeeping, IICRC told Larkin, “in every instance an adequate explanation was provided or the misunderstanding corrected.”

Grimes, a regular contributor to IE Connections and a member of its Editorial Advisory Board, did not comment publicly in November on the reasons he decided to resign from the S520 body on Nov. 29. However, he said in his appeal, filed Dec. 5, that the appearance of a conflict of interest was “one of several factors in my resignation.”

“Concerns of dominance, undue influence and hidden influence have arisen,” Grimes said in his appeal. “Claims of fact, chronology and potential conflicts of interest were presented behind limitations of confidentiality that precluded adequate review and/or correction.”

In its response to Grimes, IICRC dismissed the allegation due to a lack of specificity, saying he had failed to demonstrate a policy violation. IICRC had dismissed notions of dominance with specificity in its response to Larkin, saying that while two section chairs, Jim Holland and John Banta, are both employees of Restoration Consultants, “The Secretariat does not believe that the employment connection ... establishes dominance on a consensus body that contains 26 voting members.” It also said that Holland and Banta “routinely disagree on matters of import before the Consensus Body, and do not appear to have formed any kind of alliance or dominant coalition.”

When Grimes was a member of the S520 body, he chaired the section devoted to indoor environmental professionals. The S520 body subsequently agreed during the Dec. 7–9 meeting in Tampa resolved complaints from the Indoor Air Quality Association regarding IICRC’s previously expressed intentions to acquire a trademark on the term. Following the meeting, IICRC announced while the revised standard would continue to use the term, the organization would no longer pursue the trademark.

The timing of IICRC’s responses to both appeals fulfilled the organization’s obligation to respond within 30 days, as policy stipulates.

Many of the allegations had no adverse effects, IICRC reported, and so the appellants’ proposed remedies were not enacted. IICRC did, however, indicate it would take one action as a result of Grimes’ appeal. It said, “To the extent some meeting minutes may not have been ‘approved’ by the S520 Consensus Body, those minutes will be circulated and submitted for approval.”

In an e-mail Grimes sent two days after receiving IICRC’s response to his appeal, he indicated he was not satisfied with his understanding of how the term “secretariat” is used throughout the response. Grimes had stated in his appeal that he was unclear as to whether the secretariat was an individual or an organization, to which IICRC replied, “The IICRC is the Secretariat.”

Grimes received the IICRC response as an attachment in an e-mail sent to him by IICRC attorney Mark Hansen. Grimes said he believed this indicated IICRC had treated his appeal as a “legal challenge to be defended rather than an ANSI procedural issue to be resolved.” He said it was “troubling” to see that “the response was directed to be forwarded through the office of the ‘IICRC General Counsel.’”
 

The American Lung Association’s annual “State of Tobacco Control” report grades the U.S. federal government, the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico in four categories related either directly or indirectly to health. Only one state, Maine, holds the distinction of receiving straight A’s across the board, as it has done so for a second year in a row.

“It’s an evolving thing, and it’s a cultural thing. It takes time to get people’s practices to change,” Gov. John E. Baldacci of Maine told IE Connections on Jan. 10. “The real impacts are going to be seen tomorrow, not just in dollars in cents but in lives being saved.”

Despite Maine’s achievements in smoke-free air and the three other categories the Lung Association tracks in its report – cigarette taxes, youth access, and spending on tobacco prevention and control – Maine nonetheless ranks 15th highest among the 50 states in smoking-attributable death rate, according to the most recent annual estimates available. Maine’s rate of 303.8 smoking-attributable deaths per 100,000 exceeds the national average of 284.8. Nine southern states have higher rates than Maine, with Kentucky being the highest, at 378.1. Utah claims the lowest rate among states, at 144.9.

To protect health, the nonprofit Maine Indoor Air Quality Council in 1999 adopted a position paper on environmental tobacco smoke. That paper, developed in only the council’s second year of existence and revised once since, holds that only by eliminating tobacco smoke can the hazards be mitigated.

At the time of that statement, California was the only state to have legislated a smoking ban indoors, and time was running out on other states to become smoke-free by the year 2000, heeding a call from 1985 by C. Everett Koop, surgeon general during the Reagan administration. Other states did not pick up on the task until after that deadline had passed, but Delaware picked up on it in 2002, and Maine and New York followed in 2003.

Since then, as detailed in the American Lung Association’s report, more than a dozen other states and territories have gone smoke-free or plan to, with the tally doubling between this year and last. Just seven states were smoke-free as 2006 began, with six more added to the list throughout the year, and a smoking ban took effect in the District of Columbia last month.

The trend is to continue this year as Puerto Rico is set to ban smoking indoors next month, with Arizona following in May. Utah and Montana have both passed bans to be implemented in 2009.

Successes of the earliest statewide smoking bans may account for the spurt of states going smoke-free in recent months, said Paul Billings, the American Lung Association’s vice president of policy and advocacy. Those who anticipate smaller receipts would result from laws prohibiting smoking in bars and restaurants turned out to be wrong, said Billings. “The economic gloom and doom did not come to pass,” he said in an interview on Jan. 9, the day the report was released to the public.

The report emphasizes university studies in 2004 and 2005 that prove smoking bans in Florida and Massachusetts, respectively, did not decrease sales in restaurants and the other types of establishments whose economies they analyzed.

Also referenced in the report is a 2004 study from New York City’s Department of Finance showing an increase in business receipts after the city’s smoking ban took effect in January 2003. Californians had previously witnessed a similar effect, noting increased alcohol sales in bars and restaurants during the years immediately after that state became the first to enact a ban. Billings said such experience shows that residents of such places have become conditioned to expect smoke-free air wherever they go.

Lawmakers in 2006 may have also been prompted into action after the June 27 release of a U.S. Surgeon General report on secondhand smoke. Titled “The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke,” the report railed against manufacturers of air-filtration technology designed to remove cigarette smoke and other pollutants from the air, concluding that, “Exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke cannot be controlled by air cleaning or mechanical air exchange.” It further holds that “banning smoking from the workplace is the only effective way to ensure that exposures are not occurring.”

The surgeon general’s conclusions were based on a review of literature including a 2005 statement approved by the board driving the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers. That statement said that no existing technologies “have been demonstrated or should be relied upon to control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure in spaces where smoking occurs.”

ASHRAE’s statement also factors into the bodies of research informing the American Lung Association’s report. Dr. Norman Edelman, chief medical officer for the association’s New York headquarters, told IE Connections, “The more you look, the more scientific studies are done [that show] more deleterious effects.” Referencing a study in Ireland that shows bartenders’ health improved after a nationwide indoor smoking ban took effect in pubs, Edelman said, “We have an obligation to make the workplace safe as well as the general environment.”

Manufacturers of filtration devices admit that their technologies are incapable of creating an invisible barrier between smoking and non-smoking areas, as well as removing all the particulates and contaminants present in cigarette smoke. However, air filtration can “reduce airborne contaminants to acceptable levels,” said Duke Wiser, president of Dynamic Air Quality Solutions, the manufacturer of air-filtration devices used in some national restaurant chains and country clubs.

“The use of physical separation barriers and high-efficiency filtration devices can effectively isolate contaminants within smoking areas,” said David M. Shagott, president of Abatement Technologies Inc. “This is done by placing those areas under negative pressure, and employing single-pass ventilation, i.e., ducting the air exhausted from the room directly to the outdoors.” Abatement manufactures a filtration system that healthcare facilities use to isolate infectious pathogens.

Wiser made the following theoretical argument in support of smoking in workplaces: “If there can be Class 10 cleanrooms, then there can be smoking areas that don’t adversely impact non-smoking areas,” he said. “So we see the question not as ‘Can it be done?’ but, rather, ‘How much will it cost?’ and ‘Is it worth the cost?’”

In contrast, Edelman and Billings contested that the only financial burden on owners of restaurants and bars is affording the signs that tell customers that smoking is prohibited.

“My response is always the same,” said Edelman. “Show me the proof. If they can do it, that’s OK. But I think that’s foolish.”

In Maine, the governor told IE Connections he believes establishments investing in such technology are making an unwise decision for various reasons. “It’s more expensive, and it just doesn’t work. It costs money, and it takes time to install,” said Baldacci.

“I tell everybody to make the leap. It’s not going to hurt them.”

Baldacci said one trend he has observed sweeping across various industries including the food industry is making reductions toxins and chemicals. “People are finding out in the business world, in the food world, that it makes sense to be sensitive to these issues,” he said.

Doing anything contrary to reducing pollutants, he said, is “just a waste of time and money.”

Asked for his advice on how other politicians could implement smoking bans, Baldacci answered simply. “I think the best experience is just to put it into practice,” he said.

Baldacci said he shares the American Lung Association’s belief that smoking bans will eventually be implemented in all states and communities. “They might as well just go to the point where we’re all going to be at,” he said.

The American Lung Association announced a challenge for all indoor spaces throughout the United States to become smoke-free by 2010. While, on one hand, it places the deadline 10 years later than Koop’s 1985 suggestion, Billings said this goal is attainable and may be achieved well ahead of schedule. “We’ve been pleasantly surprised at how fast we’ve seen progress in the last year, and there’s been much talk about legislation and regulation,” he said.

Billings touted the work of Koop and his successors in the role of surgeon general, including Vice Adm. Richard H. Carmona, whose four years as surgeon general ended in July, one month after he issued the secondhand smoke report. “The report was a great help,” said Billings.

The Surgeon General’s office has been temporarily held since July by Rear Adm. Kenneth P. Moritsugu, who previously held the office in an interim capacity for the six months prior to Carmona’s takeover in August 2002.

Billings said the Surgeon General’s office has a “bully pulpit” – which he also likened to “a very big megaphone” – that can be used “to advocate on behalf of the health of America.”

Asked what more could be regulated nationally to protecting Americans from secondhand smoke, Edelman said, “The single best thing the federal government can do is to raise the federal excise tax.” That tax is currently 39 cents per pack of 20 cigarettes, and the American Lung Association wants the federal government to hike the tax by $2. “It’s trivial compared to where it should be,” said Edelman.
 

David M. Governo, Esq.
Partner
Governo Law Firm LLC
Boston, Mass.

Sarah Governo Allar
Paralegal
Governo Law Firm LLC
Boston, Mass.

The perils of over-promising and under-delivering have become even clearer in light of recent settlements concerning the marketing of air purifiers from Brookstone and Sharper Image.

Brookstone sold both its own Pure-Ion model and Sharper Image’s Ionic Breeze air purifiers. These companies implied results that the products apparently did not deliver. Disgruntled customers filed lawsuits claiming that the companies deceived them and that the products did not effectively remove dust, pollen and other impurities from the air, thus failing to perform their marketed and warranted purpose. These lawsuits were recently settled, and the court documents supporting the settlements tell an interesting story about the hazards of overzealous advertising.

Brookstone
In accordance with the settlement agreement, Brookstone must mail class notices by Feb. 12, describing the suit and the settlement to all persons who purchased a full-room Pure-Ion air purifier other than the Pure-Ion Advanced. Brookstone is also directed to publish the class notices in USA Today.

Brookstone is to give each member of the settlement class a $20 store credit toward the purchase of any Brookstone product and valid for one year. Members of the settlement class may opt to return their units for a store credit equal to the purchase price paid.

In addition, the settlement agreement enforces multiple conditions regarding the production of the Pure-Ion air purifier. Prior to future marketing or mass production, units must be submitted for testing of its clean air delivery rate, the standard for overall efficiency and effectiveness of indoor air purifiers.

CADR indicates the volume of contaminant-free air delivered by an air purifier, measuring smoke on a scale of 10 to 450, dust on a scale of 10 to 400, and pollen on a scale of 25 to 250. The higher the numbers, the faster the unit filters the air.

The only full-room ionizing air purifiers Brookstone can continue selling under the settlement are new units that achieve an average CADR of more than 100 in the three categories and that also meet the Underwriters Laboratory’s Standard 867 standards for ozone emissions.

The settlement agreement also forces Brookstone to alter its marketing by May 1. In all marketing materials, Brookstone must publish average CADRs and any reference to CADR testing must include a statement providing a link to a Web site that explains CADR testing and provides a summary of the actual test results. Brookstone advertising, product packaging and owners’ manuals for full-room ionizing purifiers must include a statement that the unit is “not a medical device.” Furthermore, Brookstone is prohibited from referring to the Pure-Ion or the Ionic Breeze as the “leading silent air purifier” or from using language indicating that the unit effectively cleans the air.

A hearing for the final approval of the settlement is set for April 5. The costs of the attorneys’ fees portion of the lawsuit are limited to $1.2 million. However, the full cost remains unknown and depends on how many members of the settlement class return their products and use their $20 vouchers.

Sharper Image
The Sharper Image settlement dealt with similar issues for the Ionic Breeze air purifier. A settlement on Jan. 16 requires the company:

• to offer $19 merchandise credits to the 3.2 million consumers who purchased the products,
• to sell Ozone Guard attachments for $7 per unit,
• to test all Ionic Breeze models for ozone emissions using the UL 867 test protocol, and
• to restrict its advertising.

With respect to the advertising restrictions, Sharper Image has agreed:

• to make claims based solely on reliable scientific testing,
• not to state that the Ionic Breeze is a medical device, and
• not to claim that ozone produces health benefits.

Sharper Image will pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees up to $1.875 million.

In 2004, Sharper Image sued Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, with claims of libel and that a negative review of the Ionic Breeze air purifier was false and malicious. Not only was the case dismissed, but Sharper Image was required to pay defense costs.

An article (David Governo, “New Advice: Let the Sellers of Air Cleaners Beware”) appearing in the October 2004 issue of IE Connections, reports several specific investigations and rulings from the Federal Trade Commission, which regulates claims made against companies regarding the products that they sell. The author also contributed to the 2006 “Best and Worst of IAQ” in the December 2006 issue, describing the worst as “ozone generation, chlorine dioxide and other ‘cures’ [that] still have limited applications but apparently endless marketing opportunities.”

The recent settlement and accompanying documents show that the marketing opportunities of ozone-generating air purifiers now do have their limits.

These settlements serve as a warning to other manufactures of air purifiers that may be at risk for litigation due to claims they make. Since false or deceptive advertising can cost a company millions of dollars, it is imperative for companies to analyze their potential for liability and to use careful, precise and accurate language in advertising.

David M. Governo is a partner with Governo Law Firm LLC. Sarah Governo Allar, his daughter, is working as a paralegal at the firm until she begins an international relations internship in Argentina. The firm helps clients in preventing and resolving legal problems including business, environmental and IAQ claims. The firm also advocates for individuals and companies in local and national litigation, and counsels them in business planning, including risk management and regulatory compliance. David Governo can be reached by e-mail at dgoverno@governo.com or by phone at (617) 737-9047.
 

The only time that I have agreed to encapsulate fungal growth was in a very large warehouse where the exposed fireproofing had become moldy. The water source was a one-time event that was very unlikely to re-occur. While abundant spores remained, the fungi were no longer actively growing. Removing the fireproofing would have been unreasonably expensive (including lost work time). The encapsulant was sprayed on; then, every surface in the warehouse was either vacuumed or wiped clean with a damp cloth. Air sampling one week following encapsulating showed very few fungal spores in the air. In the years since this was done, there have been no re-occurrence of growth and no exposure complaints.

The key points in the decision to use encapsulating in this case were:

1. The water problem was solved (in this case, a one-time event).
2. The fungi were no longer actively growing (meaning that the material was dry).
3. Normal healthy adults occupied the space.
4. Removing the moldy material would have been unreasonably expensive to the extent that the space would probably have to be abandoned.

These four points must be addressed in each case where encapsulation is considered. First, whatever water problem occurred that led to fungal growth must have been corrected before encapsulation occurs, and must be such that the same event is unlikely to occur again. Fungi will grow on encapsulating materials, and there is no point in adding encapsulants to the fungal food mix if water is going to again become available.

Before encapsulating any fungi, the substrate must be completely dry. Encapsulating damp material will probably allow the fungi to continue growing right through the encapsulant.

I don’t generally recommend using encapsulants in hospitals or similar places where immunocompromised people live. On the other hand, the method may be completely safe in such situations if done properly, and could avoid the considerable cost associated with other forms of remediation. More study will be needed before we can be sure that this method is reasonable in these cases.

Finally, using an encapsulant should be considerably less expensive than actually removing all of the moldy material. Getting rid of all of the fungal material is always best, when possible. Remember: If you have fixed the water problem and removed all of the mold growth, then encapsulants should not be necessary.

An interesting article on encapsulating ventilation system ducts can be found in the April 2004 ASHRAE Journal. This article supports the idea that prevention of the water problem is the best approach to preventing fungal growth. Two of the encapsulating methods did work, but so did removal of the fibrous (water-absorbing) liner from the ducts.

What kinds of encapsulants can be used? Ideally, one would use something that will not support fungal growth and that doesn’t contain water. The decision on what specific encapsulant to use is up to the investigator with consideration of the location, extent, likelihood of abrasion, any minute possibility of the return of water, cost, etc. There are encapsulants specifically designed for encapsulating mold. These contain biocides designed to prevent mold growth on the encapsulant. I don’t generally like to use biocides but rather recommend fixing the water problem.

The Web site of Michigan’s Department of Community Health lists state-approved encapsulants for use on lead-containing surfaces. (Go to www.michigan.gov/mdch and click on “Physical Health & Prevention,” then “Prevention” and then “Lead Poisoning.” Under the “Lead Professionals” category, click on “List of Approved Encapsulants.”) It is possible that these would also be useful for encapsulating fungal growth. Asbestos encapsulation often involves using several coats of encapsulant: the first to glue the fibers together and the second to fill in the spaces. This may be the method of choice for fungi as well.

Dr. Harriet Burge is director of aerobiology at Environmental Microbiology Laboratory Inc. and associate professor and director of the microbiology laboratory at the Harvard School of Public Health. Widely considered the leading expert in IAQ, Burge pioneered the field more than 30 years ago. She has served as a member of three National Academy of Sciences committees for IAQ, including as vice chair of the Committee on the Health Effects of Indoor Allergens.

To submit a question to Dr. Burge, write to her by e-mail at askdrburge@emlab.com. All questions posed to Burge will receive a reply, although space limitations prevent us from publishing them all. By submitting a question, you agree to have your question and its answer published in a future edition of IE Connections.
 

Just in time for January’s Radon Action Month, Guam Community College opened its doors as an educational center for training radon measurement and mitigation professionals addressing radon concerns associated with the unique conditions found on a tropical island such as Guam. This will significantly benefit not only individuals residing on Guam but also contractors and engineers wanting to provide services to other Pacific Rim locations and Asia.

But, wait a minute, why can’t a person just take the tried and true mainland U.S. courses and apply it to other regions?

Unique Conditions Outside the Mainland United States
What is unique about the program being developed for Guam is that it will focus on how to measure and to mitigate structures that are commonly found throughout the Pacific Rim and Asia. In other words, the common U.S. curriculum deals with wood-frame homes built over basements in regions where winter means cold weather. In Guam, one would be hard-pressed to find a basement, and structures there, like many throughout Asia, are typically slab-on-grade and constructed of steel-reinforced concrete to withstand earthquakes. I would also venture to say that a snowflake has never made it to the island of Guam unless it was shipped there under refrigeration – but they sure have typhoons with winds that have been recorded over 200 miles per hour.

Radon entry patterns in Guam and other Pacific islands such as Okinawa are also different. The porous nature of coral-based islands allows for significant soil gas entry as a function of external influences such as rain or wind rather than thermal stack effect, which is typically the driving force for mainland U.S. locations. This causes radon spikes to be very dramatic and short-lived, which can cause significant error when relying upon short-term measurements. On Guam and other Pacific islands, one typically looks at rainy season versus dry season rather than summer versus winter. But on the other hand, the term “dry season” is a relative term because a rainstorm in the “dry season” can consist of several inches of rain, which can cause significant short-term spikes in radon concentrations that can dramatically impact a short-term reading. This is why Guam’s Environmental Protection Agency is recommending long-term testing over short-term testing for its new program.

The tightness of buildings and prevalence of air-conditioning constitute another difference. Although Guam is a beautiful island where opportunities for lying on a sandy beach with a cool one in hand, it is also very warm and humid, and essentially every home and office building has air-conditioning that operates 365 days out of the year. Couple this fact with the needs to retain conditioned air and to keep out driving rains during heavy storms and even super typhoons, buildings are constructed extremely tight. In fact, like much of Asia where wood is scarce, the buildings are made out of concrete.

When a building has a very tight shell, the slightest amount of mechanically induced vacuum, such as from exhaust fans as well unbalanced HVAC systems, can create a huge interior negative pressures that can cause radon to come flying in. This can lead to significantly variable interior radon conditions that can change as a function of occupant behavior or when portions of the air-conditioning systems deteriorate.

Also, like many buildings in the Pacific and Asia, Guam’s are built to withstand some pretty hefty earthquakes. After experiencing an earthquake in Guam registering 8.2 on the Richter scale, I personally was quite appreciative of their building practices. However, they do make it challenging from a mitigation standpoint. First, there is so much reinforcing steel that any core made through a foundation wall or a floor is bound to impact re-bar, and, with the salt conditions present on an island, the steel has to be protected. The grade beams are also frequent and deep and the slab area impacted by active soil depressurization system can be limited, often causing the need for multiple suction points.

The earthquake-resistant construction also extends to roofs that are typically made of concrete and have special membranes to ward off the 80 to 100 inches of rainfall each year. In other words, running a mitigation system up through the roof is not a good idea, and in many cases without attic spaces, it is impossible to locate the fan outside the envelope unless it is outside the home. Of course, with wind speeds over 200 mph during typhoons, this means exterior mounted fans have to be well secured and resistant to flying coconuts.

Guam EPA, Community College Approach
As the previous dissertation indicated, there are some significant differences between Guam and the mainland United States. Furthermore, the application of mainland protocols and training curriculum without adaptation is inappropriate and, as demonstrated in previous attempts, downright confusing for students. The Guam EPA and Guam Community College believe a national curriculum and certification exam dealing with winter weather, basements and crawlspaces would be irrelevant to study in Guam and make students unprepared to deal with the realities of a tropical island. On the flip side, it is unfair to citizens of Guam who may hire a nationally trained and certified contractor and expect them to competently address their needs. So, in the future, if you are a nationally certified measurement of mitigation professional, be prepared to learn some new things before performing work on Guam.

Although there have been previous attempts to have radon training programs on Guam, they have not been sustainable because they relied upon mainland trainers coming there. Guam Community College and Guam EPA are taking a different approach in that they are training local contractors to be instructors. The community college has identified some core trainers who have experience either in radon or building sciences in Guam.

In addition to becoming nationally certified, the trainers additionally participate in finalizing the Guam-specific curriculum and the details of the island’s proficiency program. In this manner, they will have a greater understanding of the differences between U.S. and Guam programs. Furthermore, they will form a core group that can assemble future data and experiences and incorporate it into the experiential base of the curriculum for future offerings.

What is also unique about the program is that the majority of the curriculum will be recorded audio and video that future students can access at their convenience rather than having to wait for a formal class. Guam Community College will periodically host classroom sessions and mitigation demonstration projects, with the core trainers facilitating classroom sessions and mentoring new students. With the combination of distance learning approaches that provide a consistent program and allow for the inclusion of off-island experts, coupled with local technical support and classroom sessions, it is felt that Guam Community College will have a solid and sustainable program. In fact, the proposed approach was solid enough to obtain funding from Region 9 EPA through Guam EPA.

It will be interesting to observe how this approach works. If successful, it will not only provide a tremendous resource for other nations in the Pacific Rim that are facing radon issues but will also provide a model that could work very well within the mainland U.S. as well. Hats off to Guam EPA and Guam Community College!

As always, who says there is nothing new in radon?

Douglas Kladder is director of the Center for Environmental Research and Technology Inc. He can be reached by e-mail at dougkladdr@aol.com or by phone at (719) 477-1714.

Editor’s note: The Center for Environmental Research & Technology Inc. devised the course discussed in this column and coordinated with Guam EPA and Guam Community College to begin providing the course in January.

The descriptive nature of definitions of Categories 1, 2 and 3 offers a handy guide for remediators who need to make expedient judgment calls on water quality and remediation protocols. The qualitative nature of these definitions may be adequate for smaller remediation jobs where the cost of bacteria testing could exceed the remediation and relocation costs or when the length of time necessary to analyze bacteria samples is not acceptable to the parties involved.

However, in some larger water intrusion incidents, the quality of the water involved and the subsequent required level of remediation may be in question and significantly impact the cost of remediation. In such cases, a more definitive and quantitative characterization of water quality and its residual contamination could be useful. At this point in time, S500 provides no guidance on what specific microbial or chemicals levels are present in these water categories.

A recent large loss occurred in the Chicago area where the issue of the water category was a very significant question. The water intrusion occurred during a storm-related, four-hour power outage in a very large apartment complex. All of the ground-level apartments were flooded with a few inches of water. Once the power returned, the sump pumps removed the majority of the water from the buildings. A drying crew responded within 12 hours to dry the affected areas completely in less than 24 hours.

During the flooding, most people reported that the water came from the sump pump in the laundry rooms in the buildings. The gutter downspouts from the roof were directly connected to the sump pump pits in the laundry room. When the power outage occurred, the roof water flooded the buildings.

However, the property owners claimed some people reported that it was a sewage backflow. This complex was below grade and had its own main ejector station. It was not directly connected to the local sewer main. Hence, there was no backflow from the sewer main. In addition, since this power outage occurred in the middle of the night, the amount of sewage generated by occupants at that time would have been minimal. Therefore, it was unlikely that sewage backflow was a major source of the intruding water.

The property owners rejected the argument that the roof water was the main water source and insisted that even a small amount of sewage made this a black water incident. They wanted everything in the 50 affected apartments replaced, even the major appliances.

Actually, S500 provides conflicting interpretations in this particular case. According to S500, if the incident was sewage-related, then this would be a Category 3 water situation. However, most of the water was rainwater from the roof that flowed into a sump pit. Since foundation perimeter drainage water is “seepage due to hydrostatic pressure,” S500 says this is Category 2 water. Was this situation seepage, or could this water be considered falling rainwater – Category 1? S500 has no specific categorization for roof run-off. Did all of the furnishings need to be disposed of or not? The insurance company decided to retain an environmental consultant to resolve the water quality question.

In classifying the category of water in this situation, it was assumed that the major concern was microbial contamination and no other sources of contamination were involved. This was an apartment complex, not an industrial site, so there should be no significant chemical contamination questions. Based on this assumption, it was decided to use the quantitative microbial levels in the research literature and bacterial water quality regulations to develop appropriate bacterial level classifications for S500 Category 1, 2 and 3 water. These numbers could then be used categorize the quality of water involved in this incident.

Before we review the various bacterial water quality standards, we should review some of the typical bacterial test methods that are used to determine water quality. These are:

1. Heterotrophic plate count, or HPC, also known as total plate count: This is the most common test method used to analyze water. It estimates the total amount of bacteria in the water.
2. Coliform bacteria: This test was initially developed to look for cross-contamination between the water in a sewerage system and well water. It looks for bacteria that live in the lower intestines of warm-blooded animals (including birds and mammals) that are necessary for the proper digestion of food. The assumption was that if these bacteria are found in potable water, then there must be a connection between sewer water and potable water. However, coliform bacteria can also be found in soil and natural waters, so a sewerage system is not always the source.
3. Escheria coli (E. coli) Bacteria: This is a test for a specific coliform bacteria known as E. coli. Some strains, such as O157, are infective and can cause serious disease. Initially, it was thought that E. coli came only from human waste. Today, we know that there are many other sources that can contaminate both food and water. Table 1 shows some examples of typical levels of E. coli from humans and other species. (What this table indicates is that in evaluating potential bacterial contamination in dwellings, the existence of pets can radically skew background or preexisting measurements of E. coli in an environment.)

4. Fecal coliform: This is another test for a specific coliform bacteria known as fecal coliform. As the term implies, these are coliform bacteria that are directly related to fecal contamination.
5. Fecal streptococci: These bacteria are members of the Enterococcus and Streptococcus groupings of bacteria. They are characterized as being round in shape and, again, fecal in origin.

Now that we have covered the basic definitions of the standard bacteriological water quality tests, we can review the relevant regulatory water quality standards and research literature to see how this information can be used to quantify the three categories of intruding water.

Category 1 Water Standards
S500 defines Category 1 water as originating from a sanitary water source that does not pose a substantial risk from dermal, ingestion, or inhalation exposure. Some examples are broken water supply, tub or sink overflows with no contaminants, melting ice or snow, falling rainwater, broken toilet tank, and broken toilet bowls with no contaminants or additives.

The first place to start identifying bacterial standards for Category 1 water are microbial standards for potable water or water that originates from a sanitary source. The most common source of sanitary water is potable or drinking water. Table 2 shows the applicable HPC bacterial limits for potable drinking water. The consensus is that potable water should contain less than 50,000 colony-forming units per 100 milliliters.

 * Although the Drinking Water Safety Act is not a legal U.S. standard per se, the EPA recognizes that properly chlorinated and maintained potable water systems will have less than 500 cfu/ml. The EPA also states, “An informal standard of 500 [cfu/ml] of potable water has been used as an indicator of the integrity of distribution systems.”

The second criterion listed in S500 for Category 1 water is that it “does not pose substantial risk from dermal, ingestion, or inhalation exposure” (emphasis added). Clearly, water from a properly maintained swimming pool does not pose a substantial risk from these types of exposure; so, swimming pool standards should be applicable to Category 1 water as well. Tables 3, 4 and 5 show various regulatory standards for HPC, E. coli and coliform standards, respectively, for swimming pool water. 

Another useful “minimal” risk example is the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, which has bacterial standards for Type I reclaimed water. Type I reclaimed water “can be applied on crops when workers are present.” This means that Type I reclaimed water also does not pose a substantial risk from dermal, ingestion, or inhalation exposure; so, these standards would also apply to Category 1 water.

Other uses of Type I reclaimed water include reservoir tanks for toilet bowls and urinals. These uses are examples of Category 1 water is the S500 definition. Table 6 shows the fecal coliform bacterial standards for Type I reclaimed water.

In summary, based on the regulatory standards in Tables 2–5, Category 1 water should contain less than 50,000 cfu/100 ml HPC bacteria, less than 100 cfu/100 ml coliform bacteria, less than 75 cfu/100 ml fecal coliform, and less than or equal to 88 /100 ml E. coli.

Category 2 Water Standards
S500 defines Category 2 water as water that “contains significant contamination and has the potential to cause discomfort or sickness if contacted or consumed by humans.” Some examples include discharges from dishwashers, discharges from washing machines, overflows from washing machines, overflows from a toilet bowl that contains urine, groundwater seepage due to hydrostatic pressure, broken aquariums, and punctured waterbeds. Such water, S520 says, “can contain potentially unsafe levels of microorganisms or nutrients for microorganisms, as well as other organic or inorganic matter.”

Some ambiguity exists in this definition with its use of the term “contacted” in “if contacted or consumed by humans.” This would not appear to include an inhalation risk. However, since inhalation risk is already included in the Category 1 definition, it would seem to imply that an inhalation risk could also be present for more hazardous Category 2 water.

For some perspective on the “contact risk” concept, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission has bacterial limits for Type II reclaimed water standards for irrigation. Type II water can only be applied to crops when people are not present. This implies a “contact risk” from this type of water. The bacterial limit standards for Type II reclaimed water are shown in Table 7. These standards clearly fall into the Category 2 water definition and provide a “contact risk” bacterial limit between Category 1 and Category 2 water.

Another example in the S500 Category 2 water definition is that consumption of the water may cause sickness or discomfort. The World Health Organization has established HPC standards for edible ice. The concern here is when ice containing high levels of bacteria melts in a beverage and makes people sick. Table 8 shows the WHO’s HPC standards for edible ice for both healthy and immunocompromised people.

 In summary, based on the regulatory standards in Tables 6 and 7, the bacterial limits between Category 1 and Category 2 water appear to be well defined.

Category 3 Water
S500 defines Category 3 water as “grossly contaminated” with harmful agents that may be pathogenic or toxigenic. Some examples of this category include sewage, toilet overflows originating from beyond the trap (regardless of visible content or color), all forms of flooding from seawater, ground surface water, rising water from rivers or streams, and wind-driven rain from hurricanes, tropical storms or other rain events. (Water from rain events may contain silt, organic matter, pesticides, heavy metals, regulated materials, or toxic organic substances.)

In dealing with Category 3 water, the worst-case microbial situation is sewage. Since there are no regulatory standards for sewage bacterial levels, the reference literature was reviewed to identify the typical levels of bacteria in sewage. Table 9 shows the typical microbial level of sewage for total coliforms, fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci found in various U.S. municipal sewage systems.

As one can see in Table 9, the range of total coliforms for typical sewage water varies from 1.6 million to 62 million cfu/100 ml. Comparing the range of fecal coliform bacteria in sewage to the level in Type I reclaimed water (Table 6), shows that the fecal coliform levels in sewage are approximately 2,000 to 200,000 times higher than Type I reclaimed water. Similar differences exist for the other types of bacteria. Therefore, if we take the lowest bacteria levels found in this research literature of sewage, these level lowest levels should be a conservative minimum bacterial classification range for Category 3 sewage water.

In summary, based on the research literature, Category 3 water would contain greater than 1.6 million cfu/100 ml of total coliform and greater than or equal to 340,000 cfu/100 ml fecal coliform.

Application of Category 1, 2, and 3 Bacterial Water Quality Guidelines
Table 10 summarizes the total plate count, total coliform and fecal coliform bacterial limits for water that meet the definitions in S500 of Category 1, 2 and 3 water. Water being tested should comply with all three of the standards to meet a specific category definition. Here is how to do it.

At the start of your water removal process, take at least three pint-size samples of the intruding water. The samples should be taken using sterile water sample bottles. These bottles are available at very low cost from water analysis laboratories. After taking the water samples, keep the samples in a cooler with an ice pack and ship them to the laboratory within 24 hours. Have the laboratory analyze each sample for total plate count, total coliform and fecal coliform. The analysis will usually take five to seven days. By this time, the building should be dried.

Compare the laboratory analysis results to the numbers in Table 10. If the results show bacteria levels in the Category 1 range, then very little cleaning and disinfection will be needed. On the other hand, if the numbers are close to Category 3 levels, significant cleaning and disinfection will be needed to reduce bacteria levels to normal ranges.

Bob Brandys has served as president of his own environmental consulting firm since 1984 and has authored or coauthored three books and numerous publications on chemical safety and microbial control for the hospital and healthcare manufacturing sector as well as the mold consulting and remediation industries. He can be reached by e-mail at bobb@safety-epa.com or by phone at (630) 325-2083.